Q Ari,
would you think about making the prior briefing on the
record. Who gave it is going to leak out anyway.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let me give you a couple opening statements and
some other topics and if you want to take briefing time to go over that
we can. But I think maybe that's best discussed from outside
the podium.

A couple
personnel items that we will have in writing for you
shortly. The President intends to nominate Charles A. James
to be Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Antitrust
Division. And also at Justice, the President intends to
nominate Daniel J. Bryant to be Assistant Attorney General for
Legislative Affairs.

One travel
note I want to give you today because it will impact your lives and the
lives of your families for next week. The President will
travel to Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee on Tuesday and Wednesday of next
week to promote his education plan. So that will be after
Oklahoma City. The President will return to Washington, will
overnight in Washington Monday night and then this travel is on
Tuesday, Wednesday. We are overnighting in St. Louis, as I
recall, on Tuesday night.

And with
that, I'm more than happy to take questions.

Q Does
the President think amnesty is the best way to handle --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Condi has addressed the Mexico questions and I am
not going to be able to dive into them.

Q You're
not going to respond at all on this?

Q She
hasn't addressed those on the record, though, and could we get a
statement on the record?

MR.
FLEISCHER: There was a background briefing on that and I am
going to let the background briefing speak.

Q What
is the President's position on amnesty, since that is --

MR.
FLEISCHER: I am going to let the background briefing address
those issues.

Q So
when I am writing a story and I want to say what the President's
position is --

MR.
FLEISCHER: You will have to attribute it to a senior
administration official.

Q Who
is not accountable then --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Senior administration official.

Q But
President Fox has gone on the record saying he wants amnesty for
illegal immigrants into the United States. Is there nothing
on the record from the President of the United States on that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I would refer you again to the background
briefing by the senior administration official.

Q Ari,
maybe you should address the reasoning on this since it's obviously a
concern. Why is this on background?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Let's do that outside the podium. I
would be happy to. I think there are some legitimate ongoing
issues that should be addressed, and I want to work with the White
House staff and work with you to make that satisfactory to
all. I think I've got some ideas to do that. But if you
don't mind, Ron, I would prefer to do that off the podium and I'd be
happy to.

Q But
the question of drug certification, that goes beyond
Mexico. Talk about what he thinks about that.

MR.
FLEISCHER: On that question, the position of the President
is he wants to work with Mexico and with other nations to fight the war
on drugs and do so in the manner that is most
effective. There are some questions that have been raised on
Capitol Hill about whether the current certification regime is indeed
the most appropriate way to do so. And those concerns on the
Hill are bipartisan.

So the
President is going to listen to ideas that come from the
Hill. And you may want to speak with some of the people up
on the Hill from both parties who have raised questions about whether
the current certification regime is indeed the best manner of fighting
the war on drugs.

Q Does
he have a particular opinion of his own at this point?

MR.
FLEISCHER: He is going to work with people on the Hill on
that score.

Q Is
it fair to say he is open to the concept of revisiting the whole
certification issue and process?

MR.
FLEISCHER: He is open to reviewing the legislative proposals
that have been made. There are a series of
them. This has been a matter of some longstanding concern on
Capitol Hill about whether the current regime is indeed the best way to
fight the war on drugs.

Q Does
that include the bill that would call for like a two-year suspension of
the certification while we look into new evidence --

MR.
FLEISCHER: There are a variety of proposals on the Hill.

Q But
is he open to that one specifically?

MR.
FLEISCHER: There are a variety of proposals on the Hill and
he is going to work with Congress on it.

Q Follow-up
on Mexico. Should we expect any big developments, any kind
of communique out of this meeting? If not, why not?

MR.
FLEISCHER: There will be a joint statement issued following
the meeting.

Q Is
the purpose of this meeting to make big policy breakthroughs or is
there another --

MR.
FLEISCHER: The purpose of the meeting is for the two leaders
to get to know each other. They obviously knew each other in
their previous jobs. They are both new Presidents and so
they will build on their personal relationship. The
President of the United States is also honored to be invited to meet
with President Fox's mother. That's a rather gracious and
personal touch from President Fox and I know President Bush. And also
there will be a wide range of agenda items that will be discussed
between the two Presidents that are important to the two nations.

Q You
say the main reason is to build the relationship and not to break new
ground on policy?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The purpose of the meeting is to build upon the
already strong relationship and to discuss interests of mutual
concern.

Q Ari,
on tax cuts, the President no longer has to negotiate with himself
because the Democrats have put forward a plan that basically totals
$900 billion, an approach they say that is more tilted to ensuring that
debt reduction goals can be met. And, secondly, Senator
Daschle has also come out in favor of some kind of trigger to have the
ability to cut off a tax cut if surplus forecasts don't materialize as
forecasted. Any reaction to that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, there are other people, of course, that
will be listened to in the tax cut debate. There are a
number of Republicans who think that the size of the President's
proposed tax cut is far too small. We've heard calls for a
tax cut on the Republican side of $2.2 trillion, for example.

So I think
the President is encouraged by the fact that the Democrats have
announced their support for cutting taxes. That's a healthy
bipartisan sign, and he welcomes that. We will continue to
work with Democrats and Republicans alike, but the President is deeply
committed to enactment and signing into law of a tax cut of the area --
the size that he ran on and that he has proposed, which is $1.6
trillion.

Second part
of your question?

Q The
second part is, what's his position about some kind of trigger that
allows for the tax cuts to be scaled back for reasons like forecast not
materializing or surpluses not materializing?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I was actually -- I was discussing that with the
President this morning, and he expressed his puzzlement at the fact
that there's this notion in Washington that triggers apply to tax cuts,
while the whole problem has always been government spending.

The surplus
has been reduced as a result of spending decisions made in the last
Congress and signed by the previous administration. The
surplus for the next 10 years is $561 billion smaller then it otherwise
would have been because Congress and the President agreed to increase
government spending. The problem is always
spending. He does not think it is tax cuts.

Furthermore,
the President adds, that the issue is growth. If you want to
make certain that we have a surplus, the economy needs to be strong,
and that means the economy needs to grow. And in the
President's opinion, the best way to help the economy to grow is by
cutting taxes.

Q In
other words, he's not going to budge, right?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That means he's not going to budge. He
does not support that concept on tax cuts. He thinks the
risk to the surplus comes from too much government
spending. And certainly, if you don't cut taxes, that money
will be there, and he fears the politicians will try to spend
it. And secondly, he doesn't think it's good fiscal policy
to put a trigger on tax cuts because it will hinder
growth. And it also, as a practical matter, means that you
will re-impose the marriage penalty on people. You will
re-impose a higher tax rate on people. It means that you
raise taxes on people, and he doesn't support that.

Q Ari,
should Americans be troubled by the fact that while, on the one hand,
the President decries excessive spending in Washington, the basis of
the argument for why the tax cut will stimulate the economy is that
people who are deeply in credit card debt can pay off their debts so
they can spend more? I mean, is that the message he intends
to send? Just pay down your credit card debt, so you can run
it back up?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, there are a variety of good reasons to cut
taxes, in the President's opinion. And of course --

Q Yes,
but he cites that specifically.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm coming to that. And, of course, in
the President's proposals, he proposes to reduce the debt by $2.5
trillion as a result of Social Security, where he sets aside all the
money for Social Security. So the amount of debt paid down
over the next 10 years is larger than the amount of the tax
cut. When it comes to the tax cut, it is notable that people
talk about the need, and the President agrees to reduce the
debt. And that's true for the nation, that's true for
individuals.

By allowing
individuals to have more control of their own money, they can decide
whether they want to pay down their credit card bills, whether they
want to save for their children's educations, whether they want to pay
for a vacation or afford a vacation they otherwise may not have been
able to have. The President believes it should be a decision
left to individuals, because it's their money.

Q Ari,
can you tell us about the meeting with the members of Congress, what
the purpose is, what they're going to discuss?

MR.
FLEISCHER: This afternoon, a group of Republican members of
the House and Senate Budget Committees are coming in, and the
President, as you know, will be addressing a joint session of the
Congress on February 27th and he will be releasing his economic
blueprint on February 28th to the Congress. And so the
President is beginning that process. He wants to meet with
members of the Budget Committee. He will continue to meet
with members of Congress, and the purpose of it is to emphasize that
the budget he will propose will hold the line on government spending,
that the President wants to pay down the debt; his budget will pay down
the debt. The President wants to cut taxes; his budget will
cut taxes.

But there
has been too much growth in spending in the last several years,
particularly, interestingly, since the federal government got its
surplus. Spending on domestic discretionary programs was
really held in line. In fact, in some years, it declined in
real terms during the president of deficits. And as soon as
the government got a surplus, the wallets opened by both parties and
spending surged. And it surged to the point where, unless
spending is brought into check, the surplus will be reduced by $1.4
trillion over the next 10 years, as a result of government spending at
the existing rate.

Government
spending has been far in excess of inflation. It has
increased by six percent over the last three years, while inflation has
averaged 2.5 percent for the last three years.

Q He's
going to the Hill on the 27th for a joint session?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Q Evening,
is it, prime time?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Yes.

Q Ari,
just to follow up. He's had bipartisan meetings on a lot of
other issues. This is an all-Republican
group. Any particular reason?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Oh, he will be having the Democrats down, as
well. This follows the previous pattern we actually began,
having Republicans down and then quickly followed by
Democrats. We will continue to have everybody.

Q Can
you confirm some reports from senior administration officials that the
budget will try to hold spending to roughly 4 percent over baseline,
that in between -- between 6 percent which it has been and at 2.5
inflation?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I am not going to give an exact figure, but I
will say that the President's budget will hold the line on
spending. He believes that spending has been far too high on
domestic discretionary accounts and it's exceeded
inflation. There have been government agencies over the last
three years that have had 11 percent annual growth in spending and it's
one of the reasons. The surplus would be larger had it not
been for all this spending.

The budget
that he will propose will hold the line on government spending, it will
reflect the President's priorities, which means spending increases for
the Department of Defense, for example, spending increases for the
Department of Education, for example. But the President
believes that we can have a moderate and reasonable rate of growth in
spending but nowhere near what it has been in the past. That
has reduced the size of the surplus and the President is concerned that
Washington has been spending too much money.

Let me take
one step back, too. One of the reasons there has been such a
surge in spending that we hope we can put an end to is what is commonly
referred to as the "exit fee." Congress in previous years,
as it was negotiating with the previous administration, paid an exit
fee in order to be able to recess. There were threats made
that the government might shut down, appropriation bills would not be
signed and, as a result, Congress continued to spend more money per the
request of the previous administration, and that is one of the reasons
you had spending at a much higher rate. We think with a
change in administrations, one of President Bush's new focuses in
Washington will be to restrain that growth.

Q Just
to follow up, Ari, the principal blame for this excessive spending you
would place and this White House would place on the Clinton
administration, not the Republican Congress?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No. I mean, look at the words I just
said: Congress. It was --

Q You
said the exit fee was driven by the White House. That's what
you just said.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I just walked through the mechanics of how it
took place. But it is a problem that is well-known in
Washington and both parties, as I've said before, do it.

Q Isn't
that called negotiation?

MR.
FLEISCHER: It was. And that was the agreement
they reached. It's a fact. They reached those agreements,
and those agreements increased spending on an annual basis by more than
twice the rate of inflation.

Q Ari,
does the White House have any comment on the opening of a criminal
probe on the Marc Rich pardon by the U.S. attorney general in New
York?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President has expressed himself on that
issue. The President's point is that we should move on.

Q If
I can follow up, that's not very substantive. What does he
mean, move on? We've got a U.S. attorney general in the
relevant district that is reportedly moving forward with an
investigation. Does he support that or doesn't he?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I do not think it is the role of the President to
dictate to the independent Justice Department what investigations they
should or should not conduct. The President has expressed
his opinion when he was asked about the Marc Rich pardon investigation
thereof; he has expressed his view as the President what he
thinks. But I do not think anybody believes the President of
the United States should be the one to tell the Department of Justice
how to conduct its investigations.

Q Has
he watched or monitored any of the hearings regarding the pardons?

MR.
FLEISCHER: He's well aware of it.

Q Has
he seen, from what he has been told and what he has seen -- I know he
said move on, but has he found anything of any credence or legitimacy
in those hearings to maybe say, well, maybe this might be worth looking
at a little bit more?

MR.
FLEISCHER: He has expressed his opinion.

Q In
the same way that he can't tell a U.S. attorney what to do, he can't
tell Congress what to do, obviously. But he can send
signals, particularly since the leaders are of his same
party. Was he trying to send a signal to Congress when he
said he wants to move on?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think the words speak for
themselves. He was asked; he said he thinks it's time to
move on. He was asked about Congress and he says Congress
will do what Congress does.

Q Has
he spoken to any members of Congress about it specifically and
expressed his --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Not that I'm aware.

Q Have
any members of the White House done that, any White House staff?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Nobody that I'm aware of.

Q When
he says "we should move on," who is "we"? The American
public should stop, should stop paying attention to Congress --

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think we heard from the President his overall
approach to all these matters.

Q But
who is "we"? Who specifically should move on?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think he was expressing his personal point of
view about what the tenor of this nation should be toward those
issues. And he can only speak for himself, is what he was
doing. And he did say Congress will do what Congress does,
and because he is respectful of Congress's prerogatives as a separate
and equal branch of government to conduct its affairs in the manner
that Congress sees fit. But he was expressing his sentiment
about these investigations and about the issue.

Q Should
we not interpret that to mean that his Justice Department also should
move on and there should not be an investigation?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, one of the things President Bush stressed
in his selection of the person to run the Department of Justice is it
should be a nonpolitical Department of Justice. And when
something is nonpolitical, that means you leave investigative decisions
to the professionals to make those decisions.

Q He
said "we should move on."

Q He
personally thinks they should move on, doesn't he? The
Justice Department should ignore this?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, again, part of expressing his views as the
President, given the fact that he has said that we will have a Justice
Department about which we can be proud, it will be a nonpolitical
Justice Department, is they are career professionals who are entrusted
by the public to make those decisions. And the President
respects their rights.

Q Ari,
to what extent does the President's view on this reflect a frustration
that throughout the first month of his presidency, Bill Clinton seems
to have dominated the headlines as much as if not more than the new
President?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I assure you the President does not have any such
frustration. He is just looking forward and not looking
backward and he is focused on his job and on policy and on issues, on
education and on tax cuts. That's his agenda and he's
delighted to be in the middle of it.

Q It's
not just congressional prerogatives that are at issue here; it is, as
the President himself has acknowledged, the presidency and the
prerogatives and specifically delegated powers of the presidency which
are at issue. So he is okay with his own Justice Department
launching an investigation which could diminish the pardon power or the
scope of the pardon power for his successors?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think that the only talk I have heard on
that is up on the Hill where they are talking about amending the
Constitution. That's the only way to limit the presidential
pardon prerogatives.

Q Well,
if he sets a precedent that successor Justice Departments can
investigate the exercise of the pardon of the preceding president, that
will certainly, as a matter of fact, diminish the power of the
president.

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think what you are asking is what is the basis
for what the Department of Justice is doing and I think you have to
talk to the Department of Justice to see what their basis
is. But that is separate and apart from the
constitutionally-derived powers that President Bush enjoys to grant
pardons.

Q So
he is perfectly okay with his own party investigating the exercise of
this power by his predecessor, and his own Justice Department
investigating the exercise of this power.

MR.
FLEISCHER: There's an important and fundamental principle
here that the President addressed in the selection
process. You've heard him say this yourself. In
his words, what he talked about, it's important to have a Department of
Justice that is non-political.

Q More
important then defending the presidency's prerogatives? It sounds like
he's not defending what the presidency is entrusted with under the
Constitution.

MR.
FLEISCHER: It's a separate issue. He's not
dealing with the President's prerogatives. The President's
prerogatives to grant pardons are given from the Constitution and
President Bush still enjoys those powers undiluted.

Q Yes,
but it seems that -- the ambiguity here is that maybe his point is the
opposite of what Terry is saying, that, no, indeed, he's not okay with
his party pursuing this, or his Justice Department pursuing this,
because in his words, his opinion is that we should move on from all
this. He was speaking as President of the United States, not
citizen of America, correct?

MR.
FLEISCHER: And as the President of the United States, that's
his feeling. We ought to move on, because I'm not going to
be able to further this any further.

Q Ari,
this week President Bush has been talking about defense, and he
blatantly, some in the CBC say, left them out, including one member of
the Armed Services Committee in the House, who actually is from
Georgia, as well, and also a member who is in Virginia, the Norfolk
area, Bobby Scott, and Cynthia McKinney, and letters have been
sent. What does the White House say about this?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Okay, in the case of Congressman Scott, he was
invited to the event. The only people who traveled with him
on the airplane were members of the Armed Services
Committee. In the case of Congresswomen McKinney, that was
an oversight that the White House regrets, and she should have been
invited.

Q Why
wasn't she, though? I mean, why was she -- was she left off
--

MR.
FLEISCHER: It was an oversight from the Office of
Legislative Affairs.

Q But
do you have a list of Armed Services Committee members? I mean, her
name is on there. How was she left off?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'd have to ask, but as I said, it was an
oversight.

Q And
some say that it could be an oversight because of tension from that
last CBC meeting. Is that true?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No.

Q And
did you also --

Q That
would be a better story.

Q Did
you also have that meeting this week on racial profiling by police?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That was a staff-level meeting, and I don't have
any information on a staff-level meeting.

Q What
day was it, or did it happen, or will it happen?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I don't have any information. It's a
staff-level meeting.

Q On
the budget, when you're talking about rate of growth outside education
and defense, are you looking at a budget that basically just meets
anticipated costs and no more, or less then even the built-in
anticipated cost?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, we are looking at a budget that will
increase government spending by a more moderate amount then has been
done in the past. Spending will go up, but it will just not
go up anywhere near as much as it had been going up
previously. And no matter how you define it, that is an
increase. What's important is the best way to preserve the
surplus, pay down the debt and allow the American people to get their
taxes cut is to start a new way of spending, which is to have much more
reasonable and moderate rates of spending. And that's what
the budget will do.

Q It's
basically a freeze for anything outside defense and education?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I wouldn't say that at all.

Q When
the Democrats unveiled the outline of their tax cut plan, they
presented the case of a single mother who said she earns $20,400 a year
before taxes, and she believes that she would receive $117 under
President Bush's plan. Does that sound accurate to you?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Give me her circumstances again.

Q It
was $20,400 before taxes. She says she would get --

MR.
FLEISCHER: How many children?

Q She
has one.

MR.
FLEISCHER: And is she married?

Q No.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Okay. The source of the tax cut would
derive, for her, from increasing the child credit from $500 to
$1,000. It would also derive from lowering the rate -- she's
in the 15-percent bracket -- lowering her rate from 15 percent to 10
percent. Those would be the two principal areas in
there. Of course, if she gave money to charities, she could
now have that as a deduction. If she did not have
employee-provided health care, she would be eligible for a tax credit
of up to $2,000 under the President's budget. So there are
other circumstances you have to ask. I think that's probably the
singular biggest one. If she does not have employee-provided
health care, she would have a $2,000 tax credit from the
administration, depending on her circumstances.

Q Ari,
this women was came to -- at the press conference, and she was standing
there with John Corzine, who said he's going to get $1 million and he
doesn't need it. And she said, well, I'd like to have a
little of that. Can the administration hold to this, or do
you have to ultimately try to give this woman a little bit more out of
this tax cut?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Well, again, our viewpoint, in terms of what
Senator Corzine had said is, if you don't cut the taxes, the money is
going to be spent, and that's an important philosophical point the
President is making. Now, the President has proposed a
budget that helps people from all walks of life. And it is a
tax cut that is designed to help the income taxpayers and all Americans
so they can have a piece of their tax money back.

Q Well,
my question is, is he open to perhaps moving it down the scale a little
bit, so this woman --

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is going to fight for the plan that
he ran on. And that plan means reducing and simplifying the
current five-rate structure to a four-rate structure; lowering that
bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent so that she can be helped;
doubling the child credit so she can be helped; health care tax credits
so that she can be helped.

But he also
believes very strongly that nobody in this country should be forced to
pay more than one-third of their income in taxes. His budget
will focus on that, his tax cut priorities will.

And one
other reminder. One of the reasons that this surplus is
growing in recent years is because income tax receipts are
up. It's not payroll tax receipts. Payroll taxes
are coming in just as projected. But every year, income tax
receipts have gone up faster than anticipated. So one of the
principal drivers of the size of the surplus, the growing surplus, is
income tax receipts.

Q But
he would be opposed to adjusting it so this woman gets --

MR.
FLEISCHER: He's going to fight for the plan that he ran on.
His plan helps that taxpayer and many taxpayers in the lowest end of
the income brackets.

Q You
said in response to Mark's question, the President is not frustrated by
the amount of press coverage former President Clinton has
received. I'm wondering if actually the White House views it
as a net plus, politically. You don't operate in a political
vacuum. As you press your legislative agenda forward, does
the White House detect any particular advantage this White House is
gaining for all the controversy surrounding its most recent occupant?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Major, I think this White House has been very
consistent about the question that we're looking forward and not
backward. We're not dwelling on those issues.

Q As
you look forward, you are obviously looking at polling data and
assessments of Democrats, assessments of the general atmosphere on the
Hill. Are those calculations in any way affecting your
outlook?

MR.
FLEISCHER: We are just looking forward and the President's
agenda is focused on the policies.

Q On
the submarine accident, Ari, there is a report that some of the
civilians who were on board were GOP donors and were being rewarded for
their contributions during the last campaign. Can you tell
us whether or not any of the people who were on that sub, any of the
civilians, were given that ride because of their contributions during
the election cycle? And can you tell us whether any of them were GOP
donors?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I saw that story and I dismiss it as
nonsense. I don't know their contribution histories, whether
they were donors to the Democrats or Republicans. The only
thing I do know from reading media accounts is they were donors to what
I believe was a war memorial in Hawaii. So there may have
been some confusion over that. But I saw that story and I
dismiss it. That is not the way this White House does its
business.

Q Why
not release the list of those who were on board?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I haven't seen any such list. Nobody
in the White House that I'm aware of -- and I've talked to many people
-- has seen any such list. I would refer you to the
Department of Defense.

Q The
White House clearly trumps the Defense Department. If you
tell them to release the list, they're going to release it.

MR.
FLEISCHER: And the Defense Department is taking the review
-- undertaking the review of the incident, and we will see what the
Defense Department determines was the cause of the
incident. But that's part of their review.

Q Ari,
a question about judges real quick. Some Republican senators
are circulating a letter to try to get Slade Gorton a judicial
nomination. And, secondly, can you tell me if judicial
selections will come mainly out of the White House or the Justice
Department?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I am not going to comment, as you know, on the
specifics of it. Let me take the question as far as the
whole process for judicial selections. Let me find out.

Q That's
a very important item for them. That's something they're
looking for in particular from the Bush White House is conservative
judges.

MR.
FLEISCHER: Right.

Q A
Middle East question? Is the President discouraged by the
fact that statesmanship and diplomacy has not worked at all in the
Middle East right now?

MR.
FLEISCHER: You heard the President's sentiments that he
expressed prior to his departure for West Virginia. And I
would remind you of the President's words that you heard also in the
background briefing prior to my briefing, about discouraging the cycle
of violence and that it will not help anybody in terms of a negotiating
position.

Q Senator
Jeffords said that the tax plan is too expensive and seems to come out
against it. There is some concern that other moderate
Republicans may follow. What is your response to that, how
concerned are you about that?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Sure, and Senator Miller said that he supports
the size of the tax cut. And so I think what you are seeing
is part and parcel of the legislative process. There will be
some who are with us, some who are against us, and we are going to
continue to work with one and all so that on that important day we can
have 50 votes or 50 plus one votes or even more than that, if we're
able.

Q Doesn't
that indicate that you are going to have to decrease the price tag on
that with many of the Democrats, much less now even some Republicans
saying it's too much?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I think it just indicates that the
legislative process is beginning. And as you all know from
covering legislative processes before, we work with everybody and
continue to have conversations with people. This is the very
beginning of a process that we think is going to result in substantial
tax relief close to if not exactly what the President proposed.

Q Ari,
on the three parts of your tax cut, the marginal cut, the marriage
penalty and the estate tax, would you say that the estate tax is the
last priority among those three, and is the one most easily separated
from the other tax cuts?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, I would not say that, and I'm glad you raised
that. I've noted that there has been some discussion about
the death tax, and I assure you, President Bush is deeply committed to
the repeal and elimination of the death tax, just as he ran
on. And that is what he proposed. It was in the
package when it was sent up to the Hill. I remind you it was
on the front page of the executive summary advocating repeal of death
taxes. It was contained in a big section within the
submission to the Hill. The President believes that the
death tax should be abolished.

Q He's
also said that he's open to seeing it divided up, depending on how
Congress operates, and also open to seeing it retroactive. So I assume
he wouldn't oppose it if that were separated from one or the other
two. And also, there are lots of estimates of very expensive
costs for making a tax cut retroactive. Does the White House
have any view or any ideas for making it retroactive that do not cost
several billion dollars?

MR.
FLEISCHER: On the first part of your question, the President
views that as issue of legislative tactics and, therefore, he has told
the Hill that the House needs to figure out the order in which it wants
to proceed with the tax bill. The Senate will figure out the
order it wants to proceed. The President will be very
pleased to sign it in pieces or in one comprehensive bill, so long as
it all adds up to the proposal that he made.

On the
second piece, about retroactivity, it all depends on a series of
decisions that get made, that would drive the cost of retroactivity in
the first year. And they all deal with the phase-ins and at
what point you phase things in, how slow do you phase things in, how
fast do you phase things in. So you can have a tremendous
discrepancy in what those estimates are for fiscal year
2001. And until decisions are made, no one is in a position
to give you accurate numbers.

Q But
if Congress does it in a way that's very expensive, wouldn't you have
to subtract that from the overall price, because the President is
determined to keep it --

MR.
FLEISCHER: Whatever the price tag is, it will be reflected
in the final package. There is a cost to retroactivity,
unquestionable.

Q Back
on the sub, does the President think it is an appropriate and safe
procedure to have civilians at the controls of a nuclear sub, taking it
on a joy ride?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President is waiting for the report to come
back from the DOD. They are reviewing the accident, and I
think that's something they're going to address. And the
President will wait to hear the report from DOD.

Q Any
reaction when he found out that there were civilians at the controls --
monitored, but at the controls of the sub?

MR.
FLEISCHER: His first reaction was sympathy for the Japanese
people and for the victims of the accident. And the rest
he's going to wait for DOD.

Q Is
he curious about how you get into those seats, about what the selection
procedure is for civilians to take that joy ride?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Again, he's going to wait for DOD to issue its
report.

Q President Pastrana announced yesterday he will be visiting
Washington. Is this a sign of support from the White House
to the fact that Pastrana has gotten ahead with the conversations with
the rebels -- a signal that the U.S. is going to go all out to back
Colombia?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President will meet with President Pastrana
on the 27th. I issued a statement yesterday in regard to the
meeting, and that statement encompasses what the President's viewpoint
is.

Q In
response to Jim's question about GOP donors, you said you dismiss it as
nonsense. You dismiss it because you know for a fact that it
is untrue, or you dismiss it because you're trying to bury it?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think the question implied that the White House
would use a submarine to raise money, and I dismiss that as
nonsense. I said I haven't seen the list; I don't know
whether people are Republican donors or Democrat donors, but the
suggestion that somebody would be selling seats on a submarine to
donors is nonsensical.

Q Air,
a follow-up on the sub. Coast Guard officials in Hawaii are
considering now calling off the search operation at the end of the
day. Is that consistent with what the President plans to do
in his conversation with Prime Minister Mori?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President expressed to the Prime Minister, as
I said earlier, his sympathies, and said we'll continue to work with
the Japanese government on the rescue mission. And our
officials have been in touch, DOD officials have been in touch with
Japanese officials, and it is consistent.
Q Did
not the President tell Prime Minister Mori that everything the U.S.
could do to find and recover those who perished in the boating accident
would be done?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President expressed the sentiment that we
would do everything we could do, and we're currently discussing with
the government of Japan at the Pentagon level what can be done.

Q Have
you fixed a date on the meeting for President Bush and Prime Minister
Mori?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, we have not yet.

Q Does
the incident impact the scheduling of that meeting in any way?

MR.
FLEISCHER: As you know, when we have announcements to be
made about when meetings take place, we will announce
them. We have nothing to announce right now.

Q Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, indicated that he
wants to do just a prescription drug proposal
for Medicare this year, and maybe put off until later comprehensive
reform. Does the President agree that maybe you should wait with the
more comprehensive solution?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President remains committed to a
comprehensive reform of Medicare. He does think it's
important. He thinks it's important to give seniors
prescription drugs in the context of comprehensive reform.

Q My
question is more on timing, though. I know he's committed to
that, and probably Grassley is, too, but does the President think it
should be done this year?

MR.
FLEISCHER: We'll work with the Hill on the exact timing
issues.

Q --
last night on West Wing, the TV show? It was about Colombia
and the possibility of being kidnapped and Black Hawks turned down and
everything that might happen in Colombia. And especially when the
President is coming and Colombia is being called one of the biggest
challenges for the Bush administration, what do you have to
say other than the President is coming to visit President Bush?

MR.
FLEISCHER: Is your question premised on West Wing?
(Laughter.) I did catch the final 15 minutes of it last
night. Let me ask you to address that to Mary Ellen, if you
don't mind.

Q Ari,
when you referred before to some departments that had their spending go
up 11 percent over the past few years, could you be specific, and can
you tell us, are those departments that will now see their spending
come down?

MR.
FLEISCHER: You will receive all the numbers from us at the
time of the budget submission. And I can -- I'd be happy --
I didn't bring it with me, but I will be happy to walk you through
which agencies did have spending increases over those last three years,
and what their levels were. I'd be more then happy. I can
take that up any time you want.

Q Ari,
we're talking about triggers with the budget. Congress, as I recall,
had triggers on it back in the '80s, which were routinely ignored -- I
think it was Graham-Rudman -- were routinely ignored. Is the
President going to set his own triggers by which he will not accept
further spending from Capitol Hill?

MR.
FLEISCHER: That's part of the meeting
today. That's part of the budget submission he will
make. And that's why the President is dedicated to making
sure that this town holds the line on spending. And that --
discipline itself is a trigger. The ability for Congress to
refrain from opening up the tax payer's wallets to more spending, it
itself is a trigger.

And you
raised a very valid point. Graham-Rudman-Hollings was, in
essence, an approach based on deficit projections of what government
had to do to bring deficits into certain lines. And it lead
to a lot of gimmickry, and to other issues that were complicating the
process of government. But I refer you to what I said
earlier today, about where the President sees the risk is really in
spending, not tax cuts.

Q So
is his caucus with the members of Congress today to try to give them a
talking-to about once I send you this budget, don't add to it or -- is
that the message he's trying to deliver?

MR.
FLEISCHER: The President will begin the process of making
the case for the budget that he's going to submit to the
Hill. It's a budget, as I indicated earlier, that pays down
the debt, that cuts taxes, that holds the line on
spending. And it's important to work with the people
responsible for it, to share his ideas with them, to hear their
ideas. It's going to be hard. This town was built
to spend and the President is going to try to slow that down and stop
that.

Q Let
me ask you, since we are not likely to see you tomorrow and I don't
know about Monday, about travel next week, the states he's going to
visit, what kinds of things is he doing to sell the education package
and how much of his travel is --

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'm going to try to address some of those things
tomorrow.

Q When?

MR.
FLEISCHER: I'll see you.

Q Has
the President imposed a dress code yet on White House staff and does it
prohibit female White House workers from wearing pantsuits?

MR.
FLEISCHER: No, the President did suggest to men that if
you're going to enter the Oval Office, you should be wearing a
tie. And that's something we all proudly do. But,
no, there is nothing more than that. Andy Card suggested
jeans are not appropriate to be worn in the West Wing and we all adhere
to that.

Q Why
was the Reagan birthday resolution signed today, signed nine days after
his birthday? (Laughter.)

MR.
FLEISCHER: Because I think we had 10 days to sign it.

Q Did
it just get sent late, is that what it was?

MR.
FLEISCHER: It's all careful timing.

Q Just
now announced, though, right?

Q If
I can try to go back one last time to Mary Jo White's investigation,
would you characterize the President's attitude toward that
investigation --

MR.
FLEISCHER: I think we've exhausted this topic.

Q Let
me try one last time. Is his position hands off or tilted
negative?

MR.
FLEISCHER: There is nothing further I am going to contribute
on that. I think we've been there and addressed it fully.